2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. From May 1, 1997, the Plaintiff operated the “○○○ Gas station” located in the Simsan-si 111-1 located in the Simsan-si (hereinafter “U.S.”). From February 2008 and the value-added tax period for the first term portion in 2009, the Plaintiff issued a purchase tax invoice on December 31, 2008 (the supply price of KRW 41,272,727, the tax amount of KRW 4,127,273), and the purchase tax invoice on January 31, 209 (the supply price of KRW 21,090,90, the tax amount of KRW 2,109,09) and the tax invoice on January 31, 209 (the supply price of KRW 21,281,281,2081, the purchase tax invoice for the second term portion in 2081,2081,281,281,281,281,209.

B. On August 1, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition of correction, on the ground that the entry of the instant tax invoice is different from the fact, imposing KRW 5,597,720, and KRW 5,586,620 for the second period of 2008 on the ground that the entry of the instant tax invoice was not true (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, 9-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

Even if the AA oil and BB energy did not actually supply oil, the Plaintiff was supplied with the actual oil, deposited the price into the account of the said company for normal transactions, and did not know that the said company was in this material. At the time of being supplied with the oil, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a transaction party, such as receiving a detailed statement of transaction, a shipment slip, a transport vehicle number, a transporter, and a confirmation of the fact of transaction, including the tax invoice of this case, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts, and the meaning of "the entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts" refers to cases where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the subject, price, and time of the actual supply or the supply of the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). In addition, when comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in each entry in the evidence No. 2-1 through No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 2, AA oil and B energy are so-called materials that issue the processed tax invoice without actual transactions, and it can be acknowledged that the supplier has not actually supplied oil to the Plaintiff.

B. A tax invoice entered by a supplier who is not an actual supplier may not be deducted or refunded an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the person who was supplied with oil was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice and was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name of the tax invoice. The fact that the person who was supplied with the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name of the supplier shall be proved by the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009; 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In full arguments as stated in each of subparagraphs 1 through 4-5 of the evidence No. 3-5, the plaintiff was supplied with oil in fact and deposited the price into the AAA oil and BB energy account, but in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was not aware of the false name of the supplier or did not know the fact.

(1) Since May 1, 1997, the Plaintiff operated a gas station for more than 10 years. Therefore, in light of the experience during the period, the Plaintiff was able to know the normal structure and distribution route of oil supply, the general type or method of the oil industry, the actual condition of data transactions, and the risk of danger and injury.

(2) The Plaintiff purchased the instant oil through the introduction of an employee of AA oil tank who did not have a usual friendship, and was supplied at a level of 30 won per L below the normal supply price of oil refineries.

(3) The shipment slips issued when oil reservoir, etc. supplies oil to oil stations are important materials to confirm that the oil was transacted through normal distribution channels. At the time of the supply of the instant oil, the Plaintiff received a different shipment slips and the type and entries issued by oil refineriess.

(4) Part of the shipment slip received by the Plaintiff does not bear the pre-delivery number (Evidence 2-3 of the evidence A), the place of destination is a blank space (Evidence 2-1, 2 of the evidence A), or the shipper’s column is a blank space (Evidence 2-1, 4 of the evidence A). In addition, the oil is included in the shipment slip that is normally issued due to the difference in the volume depending on temperature and density, and the temperature and density are stated in the first unit, and the temperature and density are accurately stated. The shipment slip received by the Plaintiff is written on a daily basis, and the temperature is a blank space. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.